Allowed

Kammari Gangamani and 3 Others v. v. Narsing Madhav and Another

Telangana HC7 Jul 2023MACMA/1243/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Enhanced motor accident compensation from Rs. 2,75,052 to Rs. 8,68,125 including loss of dependency and consortium. Ordered insurance company to deposit enhanced amount within one month.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation from Rs. 2,75,052 to Rs. 8,68,125 with interest at 7.5% per annum; insurance company directed to deposit amount within one month.

Kammari Gangamani and 3 Others Vs v. Narsing Madhav… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁰⁸ ]

¶2

I i i I I I I I I

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF^JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE^P.SREESUDHA

¶7

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS^{APPEAL NO: 1243 OF 2008}

¶8

Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor^Vehicles Act^{against the order and decree} in O P.No 951 ot 2O02 ,dated 1210312007 on the file^{of the Court of the Chairman} Motor Accident Tribunal^{-cum (Vlll} Additional^{District Judge} ) ,^Nizamabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

1 Kammari Gangamani , W/o. Kammari Vittal, Aged about 40^years ,Household^{R/o. Mogha (V), Madnoor(l\I), NizamabadDist.}

¶11

2 Kammari Gangadhai, S/o. Kammari Vittal Aged aboul 22^years ,Student^R/o. Mogha (V), Madnoor (M), Nizamabad Dist.

¶12

3 Kammair NagaMani, D/o. Kammari Vittal Aged about 20^years, Student^R/o. Mogha (V), Madnoor (M), Nizamabad Dist.

¶13

4 Kammari Tulasa Bai, Wo. K. Naganna Aged about 64^{years, Household} R/o Mogha (V)' Madnoor (M)' Nizamabad o'tt

¶14

...orraaaoNTS/cLATMANTS

¶15

AND

¶16

,1, V. Narsing Madhav , S/o. tvladhav Auto Owner R/o. Eklora^{(V), Madnoor(M),} Nizamabad Dist.

¶17

2 United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by Br. Manager Godown^Road, Nizamabad' A P

¶18

...RES'.NDENTS/RE.'.NDENTS

¶19

Counsel for the Appellant: Smt. K. SARALA MAHENDER^REDDY

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRl. V. SAMBASIVA RAO

¶21

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE^SUDHA

¶23

M.A.C.M.A.No. 1243 of 2OO8

¶24

JUDGMENT:

¶25

This appeal is filerl agiiinst^{the Orderdated121 03.2OO7 in} O.P.No,951 of 2OO2^{passcd lxtl-rc Chairman,MotorAccidents} Claims Tribunal (VIII^'- Additlonal^{DistrictJudge), Ni;ramabad.}

¶26

Appellantsⁱ pcti[ioncrs Illt:d O.P.No.951^{of 2r]02,before} the trial Court claiming cornpclsation^{of Rs.8,0O,0()0/ - for the} death of the rle ccascd Karttrl,tri Vittal.^{There is no dispule} regarding the a,:cidcnt, buL^rhc quantum^{of compensation} grantcd by thc lritrl Cctltrt is c rrl'. tlisputcd.

¶27

The trial Ci)Llrt cxitminccl [].Ws.1^Lo 3 and^{mar<crl Exs.A1} Lo A7 on their beiralf.'l'hc se,:ontl respondent^{goL examined thc} Mandal Revenue^()fficcr, Maclrroor as R.W.1 and^{got marked} Ex.Xl and trx.Bl.

¶28

The Icarncd Coltt'tsi l^irt' the appellants^{l claimants} conte nded that^(lcccaseclu as^u'orking as blacksn:ith,^doing agriculture ancl also cloirr': Itltsincss and \'a\ earning Rs.12,OO0/- pt:r rnontlr. Tlrel ltrrr,c :rlso filcd income certihcate

¶29

¶30

issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, in which the annual income of the deceased was mentioned as Rs. 1,00,000/, but the trial Court after discussing the evidence at length, considered the income of the deceased as Rs.2,500/ per monlh. Therefore, requested the Court to modifv the awarcj passed by the trial Court.

¶31

In view ol the decision of the Hon,ble Apex Court in the casc of Ramachand.rappa Vs. Manager, Rogal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Compd.ng Limited,t considering age and occupation of the deceased, this Courts finds that it is just and reasonable to consider the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month.

¶32

As per the guidelines of the Hon,ble Apex Court in dictum of Sarla Verma Vs, Dethi Transport Corporation,2 if the deceased was married, I l4b of his incomc has to be deducted as there are 4 dcpcndcnts i.e., 13,500/- lowards his personal expenses. Thus, the annual income of the deceased alter deducting pcrsonal expenses comes to Rs.40,5OO/- per annum and the Hon'ble Apex Court in the dictum of Nqtional

¶33

'^{(zo t t} ) t: scc z]e

¶34

'(zoo,r)^o scc tz r

¶35

¶36

Insurance Compang Limited Vs. Pranag Sethi3, held that the

¶37

future prospccts of incomc :ri ihc self-employcd de:eased shall also be include<J in dctr:rmirtution of the compensation. Thus, considering the agc ol thc cicctascd,2501, of the inr:orne has to be addecl to\4'arc1s fulure prosltects and thus the anrolrnt would become Rs.5O,6:25/-. This sunr if multiplied with the rnultiplier applicable to th(: age of the deccased i.e.48, it wor.rld come to Rs.6,58, 125/ (Rs.50,(>25l -X i3).'I'hus, appcllants/claimanrs are entitled to Rs.6,58,125/- unctIr the he ad 'Loss of Depcndency'.

¶38

Besides, the appellanrs rrre :rlso entitled for compensation under 'conventional hcacls rLs prescribcd in thc dictum of Rs. 15,000/- towrrrds loss oI [israte and Rs.15,000/ towards funeral chargcs and Ils.z10,0()0,, to the appellant No,1 tou,ards spousal consortirrm.

¶39

Furthcr, thc Hon blc Srrprt'rne Court, by rcitr:rating thc comprehensive interpre(rrrion ol- 'consortium' givc:n in thc authority of Magrna Generq.l fnsurance Compang Limited us.

¶40

r (20 t7) l6 sca'680

¶41

¶42

Nanu Ram Alias Chuhnt Ram & other*, and in the authority between tlnited Ind.ia Insurance Compang Limited vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satuinder Kaur and other:.s , fortifled that the amounts for loss o[ consortium shall be awarded to the children u,ho lose the care and protection of their parents as 'parental consortium' and to the parents as,^.filial consortium, for the loss of their grown-up children, to compensate their agony, love and affectior-r, care and companionship of deceased chrldren, Accordingly, it is just and reasonable to au,ard Rs.40,OOO/ - to appellant No.4 as filial consortium and Rs.50,000/- each to appellants No.2 & 3

¶43

Therefore, the appellants/claimants are entitled for the

¶44

compensarion in thc following tcrms:

¶45

1	Loss ofdcpendcncy	Rs.6,.58,125l-
2	Conventionalhcads	Rs.70,000/
J	Filial Consortium forparents	Rs.40,O00/-
4	ParentalConsortiumfor childrenrZ) Bsl^0,OO0/-each	Rs.1,OO,00O/-
	TOTAL	Rs.8,68,125l-

'(20t8) l8 scc t30

' 1zozo; o scc aa

In ihe rL:sult, thc app',lrl is allovved bv enhitncing the compensation amount lrolt l?s.2,75,O:>21- lo F1s.,B,6E,125/(Rupees Eight lakhs Sixtv erght thousand one hundred and twenty live rupees only) '"r,ith intercst at lhe rate ol 7.5(% per annum hom the datc ol filing Lhc pctition till datc of realization. Respondent No.2/Insurancc Comparly shall deposit the entire amount u,ithin a pcriod of one month from the date o[ receipt o[ zr copy o[ this .Juclgment. On such Deposit, appellants are cntitled to \,ithdra\4r tl-re said amount. Out of compensation amount ol' Rs.8,68,125/ -, the appellant No.4/parent is entitlccl for- Rs.l ,0O,O0O/ , appellant No.2 & 3/childrr:n are enritle(l ro Rs.SO,OOO/- each, arld the re mzrining amount of Rs.(1.(r8, 125 /- to appellalt No. 1 and appellants/claimants erre <tirected to pay the delicit Court fee on the enhanced amorln I . Thcre shall be no orcler as to COSTS

¶50

Misccllaneous perition s pending, if any, shall stanci

¶51

closed

¶52

SD/. K. AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ( IP //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶53

To, 1. The [4otor Accident Tribunal -cum Vlll Additional Diskict .Judge at Nizamabad (with records) 2 One CC to Smt K SARALA TVTAHENDER REDDY, Advccate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRt V SAIVBASTVA RAO. Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies

-BM w

HIGH COURT

DATED:0710712023

JUDGMENT

't1E S T4 r6
&
I
i
1E IUB 2$n I
/

¶61

MACMA.No.1243 of 2008

¶62

ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

¶63

€)

¶64

I I I I I i

¶65

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶66

[³²⁰⁸ ]

¶67

FRIDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶68

PRESENT

¶69

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P,SREE SUDHA

¶70

MOTOR AC crDENT CIVIL MISCELLA NEOUS APPEAL NO: 1 243 0F 2008

¶71

Between:

¶72

AND

¶73

1 Kammari Ganqamani Wo. Kammari Vittal, Aged about 40 years

¶74

2 Kammari ,Househotd R/o. Mogha (V), Madnoor Ganoadhai s/'o'Kammari Vitt6i iul, ruliirlBii Ag;j ,b6it"'i) o,.ri years,student R/o Mogha (VJ, Madnoor(M), NizamaOaO D;;i-^--""' "

¶75

^amman^{NaoaMani. D/o. KammariVittal Aged about 20 years,} Student R/o. Mogha (V), Madnoor (M), Nizamabad Oist- ----' -"

¶76

4 Ail il3!,,'"'lii: ^f,i,l,l'#^{r#i t193pl1#Booi} ...APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS^{0",, 64 ,,ea rs, H ou sehord}

¶77

)t IriiETH-rS?tJBLi^{s'o Madhav Autoowner R/oEkrora(v), Madnoor} 2 lnsurance co Ltd , Rep bv Br Manaser Godown Road, Hl]:"fJijf

¶78

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶79

Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in o'P.No. 951 0f 2002 dated 12ro3r2oo7 0n the fire of the court of the chairman Motor Acc,dent Tribunal _cum (V Additional District Judge ) , Nizamabad. ORDER: This Appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers rn the suit and upon hearing the arguments of smt. K. SARALA MAHENDER REDDY,Advocate for the Appe,ant and SRt. V SAMBASTVA RAO, Advocate for the Respondent No.2

¶80

This Court while allowing the appeal with order and decree as follows.

¶81

That the compensation amount award by the Tribunal be and here by is enhanced from as Rs 2.ll:9?2to Rs 8;68 i25l_ lnrp".r Eight Lakhs Sixty Eight Thousand One Hundred anO fwenty f,v! dup-ees Only I

¶82

with interests at the rate of 7 5,,i., per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realizatror-r

¶83

That the respondent No 2 /rnsu.ance company shall deposit the entire amount withrn a period of one nionth from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgement.

¶84

On Such Depostt . appellants are entifled to withdraw the sard amount. Out of compensaion amount of Rs. 8.68,1251 the appellant No 4/parent is entifled for Rs. 1.00,0001 appellant No 2 & 3 /children are entitleC to Rs. 50,000/_ each, and the remaining amount of Rs. 6,68,125l- to appellant No.1 and appellants/claina nts are directed to pay the deficit Court fee on the enhanced amount There shall be no order as to costs.

¶85